Differences in type descriptions

[Maverick]

I hate Keirsey's description of INFPs as healers. I just don't feel that way at all.

I don't like Keirsey's ENTJ profile and much prefer the official MBTI ENTJ profile.

For example:

The basic driving force and need of ENTJ's is to lead, and from an early age they can be observed taking over groups

I'd say absolutely for groups where there's an activity which needs structure. However, I wouldn't see this in a situation that doesn't require goal setting and coordination of competencies, such as a recreative/social group.

The ENTJ is a natural "fieldmarshal," that is, he's itching to get his hands on several "armies" so that he can marshal his forces and conduct the "war" as it should be conducted. If our ENTJ is in charge of any kind of enterprise, however small, his temperament dictates that he run it as he would his armies-with an eye to long-term strategies and their derivative tactics, logistics, and consequences.

This passage seems a little bit far fetched. It sounds like an individual with a personality disorder!

I'm not convinced about Keirsey's descriptions. I really like his NT description and can recognize myself alot in it. I tend to find the temperaments pretty interesting. However, the individual descriptions seem to fall short compared to the official MBTI.

What about you? Which descriptions fit you best?

 

[htb]

Keirsey, an INTP, appears to draw more from his type for the Rational descriptions and orientations than the other three types in Please Understand Me II -- which isn't surprising.

Isabel Briggs Myers, in Gifts Differing, pairs off the sixteen types according to theoretical dominant functions, placing the INTJ, for example, much closer to the INFJ in purpose and conduct than the INTP (which, in turn, is paired with the ISTP).

The result is that Keirsey seems to lean more heavily on characterizing an INTJ as a white-frocked scientist, while Briggs Myers observes a rational visionary. Yet both descriptions supported the possibility that my consistent testing last year as an INTJ -- not an INFJ as in years before -- was veritable.

As an aside, descriptions of INFPs and ENTJs in fact do reflect my own experiences with each type. I know two IxFPs fairly well and, however worldly, they rarely approach situations without amelioration in mind. I have known one ENTJ for nearly fifteen years, and hear stories about another likely ENTJ: both are overbearing and headstrong, though neither is particularly aware of the extent of their authority.

 

[Alesia]

I was introduced to Myers-Briggs through Keirsey. I am a member of the Association for Psychological Type and get their journal. And have been to a number of conferences.

Keirsey is viewed as a "theorist" among this Myers-Briggs community. His book "Please Understand Me" is indeed credited with popularizing Isabel Myers testing. She published a book in the 70's entitled "Introduction to Type", but it went unnoticed. You can see how Keirsey's title would indeed ellicit many people to pick it up.

But, he really just writes stuff and is known for not having research and data to back it up. He changed his marraige theories for people to marry their opposite, i.e INFP with ESTJ or ENTJ, to intuitive marrying intuitive and sensors marrying sensors. He changed because he actually got some data regarding this.

Okay, I'm off my soap box now.

 

[RDF]

Well, MBTI is after all pop psychology. A lot depends on the observer's personal impressions and scope of experience evaluating lots of different people. The Association for Psychological Type gets a lot of credit for the research it has done to provide scientific backing for MBTI. But there is still a huge subjective element to MBTI. People are never "pure" examples of their type, so a lot of sifting and interpreting and qualifying inevitably must be done.

Mainstream psychology (the American Psychological Association) has traditionally been pretty hands-off about MBTI. Partly that was because of the subjective nature of MBTI, and partly it was because APA was geared toward healing the ill whereas MBTI is more about maximizing the productivity and happiness of the healthy. (At least that's my general impression of the situation.)

But in recent years APA has been playing around with "positive psychology," which tends more toward maximizing the productivity and happiness of the healthy. So maybe someday mainstream psychology will get more hands-on about MBTI. It would be good to have the resources of mainstream psychology to do some investigating and standardizing of personality type evaluations.

Just my layman's opinions, of course.

FL

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Sorry to derail this thread, I have just one quick question and a short remark.

Maverick said that Keirsey's descriptions are lacking comparing to 'real MBTI'. Are there real MBTI descriptions, and what exactly is this 'real MBTI' business. I am not sure if Jung ever wrote a description for each of the 16 types.

Also, MBTI is not pop psych and has nothing to do with the observer's 'feelings or subjective impressions', it is entirely objective like many ideas in philosophy which are grounded in hard logic, and yet do not require support of empirical evidence. This is the crux of the 'Rationalist' methodological epistemology. (Nearly all Rationalists were INTPs, starting with Parmenides in ancient Greece than in the early modern Era we have Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz and Einstein being the last prophet, Jung by all rights could be considered a prodigy of this school of thought.)

In short MBTI is not psychology, if it were to make claims to being a psychological entity, indeed it then would accord to nothing more than just 'pop-psyche', but this is not what it is, it is an entity within philosophy of mind. We start having problems when we impose psychology onto the philosophy of mind, that is, we attribute personality qualities to qualities of temperament that Jung was at a lack to explain, it is indeed difficult to explain something that is not grounded in the concrete world and at best manifests itself through the world of concrete things.

 

[Wolf]

This passage seems a little bit far fetched. It sounds like an individual with a personality disorder!

Well, it's how I've seen ENTJs, so I'd say your observation of yourself is valid.

For my type, I'd say the major professional ones are pretty good. I believe that the reason the professional ones are so brutally accurate is that they were written by INTJs...

 

[Alesia]

Well, MBTI is after all pop psychology. A lot depends on the observer's personal impressions and scope of experience evaluating lots of different people. The Association for Psychological Type gets a lot of credit for the research it has done to provide scientific backing for MBTI. But there is still a huge subjective element to MBTI. People are never "pure" examples of their type, so a lot of sifting and interpreting and qualifying inevitably must be done.

Mainstream psychology (the American Psychological Association) has traditionally been pretty hands-off about MBTI. Partly that was because of the subjective nature of MBTI, and partly it was because APA was geared toward healing the ill whereas MBTI is more about maximizing the productivity and happiness of the healthy. (At least that's my general impression of the situation.)

But in recent years APA has been playing around with "positive psychology," which tends more toward maximizing the productivity and happiness of the healthy. So maybe someday mainstream psychology will get more hands-on about MBTI. It would be good to have the resources of mainstream psychology to do some investigating and standardizing of personality type evaluations.

Just my layman's opinions, of course.

FL

Sorry to derail this thread, I have just one quick question and a short remark.

Maverick said that Keirsey's descriptions are lacking comparing to 'real MBTI'. Are there real MBTI descriptions, and what exactly is this 'real MBTI' business. I am not sure if Jung ever wrote a description for each of the 16 types.

Also, MBTI is not pop psych and has nothing to do with the observer's 'feelings or subjective impressions', it is entirely objective like many ideas in philosophy which are grounded in hard logic, and yet do not require support of empirical evidence. This is the crux of the 'Rationalist' methodological epistemology. (Nearly all Rationalists were INTPs, starting with Parmenides in ancient Greece than in the early modern Era we have Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz and Einstein being the last prophet, Jung by all rights could be considered a prodigy of this school of thought.)

In short MBTI is not psychology, if it were to make claims to being a psychological entity, indeed it then would accord to nothing more than just 'pop-psyche', but this is not what it is, it is an entity within philosophy of mind. We start having problems when we impose psychology onto the philosophy of mind, that is, we attribute personality qualities to qualities of temperament that Jung was at a lack to explain, it is indeed difficult to explain something that is not grounded in the concrete world and at best manifests itself through the world of concrete things.

MBTI is POP Psychology!!!:SaiyanSmilie_anim: How dare you!

No, really, I'm just kidding. I aggree with everything you said FineLine, except the first two sentences.

Consider this opinion, FineLine. Psychology, period, is subjective. It is just as subjective as MBTI. True, the person who answers those questions are answering on their own subjective impressions of themselves. But I consider it to be just a "scientific" as most psychological theories. It does have a considerable amount of qualititative data to back it up. And qualitative data vs. quantitative data is truly the only data that can be accumulated in psychology. It is like the other "soft" sciences, Sociology, Anthropology, etc. But, that doesn't mean that some "persuasive" data can't be collected and pursuasive arguments can't be used for psychological theories. You can't "proove" the original Jungian theories that MBTI came from, either. Same goes for all other psychological theories.

And yeah, BlueWing. There really isn't a "real MBTI". Unless Maverick was referring to Isabel Myers original work, "Introduction to Type". It places types into the two middle functions: ST, SF, NT, NF, whereas Keirsey places them into temperaments: NT, NF, SJ, SP. But Keirsey's temperament theories are the most widely used, and what the official MBTI test, tests for.

 

["?"]

Isabel Briggs Myers, in Gifts Differing, pairs off the sixteen types according to theoretical dominant functions, placing the INTJ, for example, much closer to the INFJ in purpose and conduct than the INTP (which, in turn, is paired with the ISTP).

Which is just as bad as Keirsey, becuause the Ti-Se appears more Ni-Te, giving ISTPs an no-nonsense demeanor.

The result is that Keirsey seems to lean more heavily on characterizing an INTJ as a white-frocked scientist, while Briggs Myers observes a rational visionary. Yet both descriptions supported the possibility that my consistent testing last year as an INTJ -- not an INFJ as in years before -- was veritable.

I did not get that from his definition. The INTJ seems more like a visionary planner. I would say that the best descriptions , in my opinion, are best fit type and lifexplore.

 

[Maverick]

There really isn't a "real MBTI".

Considering the MBTI as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a personality test, then the profiles that come with the official test are the ones I'm talking about. When I completed the official MBTI I got an "official" profile for ENTJ which was very good and better than Keirsey's.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Considering the MBTI as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a personality test, then the profiles that come with the official test are the ones I'm talking about. When I completed the official MBTI I got an "official" profile for ENTJ which was very good and better than Keirsey's.

Where can this 'official MBTI' be found?

 

[Maverick]

Where can this 'official MBTI' be found?

Several places, the main one being Center for Applications of Psychological Type: MBTI and Archetype Training, Books, Research, Support Materials for Myers-Briggs Professionals and Users

 

[KMCE]

I like this one the most, although some of the points are completely off for me. I suppose it fits the older ISTJ better.

 

[The Ü™]

I actually identified with Keirsey's description with INFP at first, because I had a very fantasy-filled childhood (and as an adult, I still do). When I was little, I had stuffed animals to which I assigned voices and personalities and imagined them as living beings (like a Calvin and Hobbes deal).

Although most of my fantasies involved making up movies in my mind and acting them out. Something that concerned my parents, who later sent me to the shrink. I also apparently had a fascination with acting out violent scenes in my "mind movies" (mostly just making gruesome sound effects, though), and so my parents suspended me from watching movies that were rated above PG.

On the other hand, unlike an INFP, I was more interested in the systems I invented in my mind rather than the characters.

When I read Please Understand Me II, I began to identify myself as either an INTP or INTJ, but when I took the Keirsey test on both Advisor Team and Please Understand Me II, I came up as INTJ, along with many other MBTI tests. Overall, though, I identified with the Rational temperament.

Although I am more interested in art than science -- specifically filmmaking, screenwriting, and surrealist art -- but I don't consider myself "down-to-earth" or "realistic" like the SPs, nor do I consider myself a humanitarian like NFs (unless humanitarian is opposite of vegetarian! ). I am sort of ritualistic like the SJs, but again, I don't fancy being "down-to-earth" or "realistic."